Any nation is worthy of its ruler, who said. Every nation has the government that it is for. "Every nation deserves its own government"

How many times have we had to listen to this stupid, frivolous and callous saying from foreigners!* Usually people pronounce it with importance and disdain, in the tone of historical revelation. “After all, we have wonderful peoples in the West, and, as a result, they have cultural and humane governments. And you, in Russia, have always had the kind of government that your insignificant people deserved...".

And, unfortunately, such an interpretation of Russia, its magnificent history and its modern tragedy is not limited to salon chatter. There is still, and now continues to be replenished, a whole literature that hammers into people this understanding of Russia. There is also a special publishing tradition in Europe: to translate from Russian literature everything that the Russian pen has created in the form of self-exposure and self-flagellation, and to silence, not to translate, what the true Face of Russia reveals. One experienced Russian writer even told us that when Europeans translated Bunin’s “Village” for such purposes and asked him to write about this book, two influential European newspapers returned his article to him because it did not say “precisely because of this vileness and consists of all Russia,” and it indicated that Bunin generally understands in man only one life of dark and depraved instinct and paints it with similar features among all peoples.

Now the Europeans, obeying the same behind-the-scenes directives, are repeating the same mistake [this is a vicious practice, not a mistake]: they are doing everything possible so as not to see the real Russia, in order to bind it, confuse it and identify it with the Bolsheviks and to convince themselves, as if the Russian people “deserve” that oppressive, destroying and exterminating “government” that is now terrorizing them.

Let us accept this stupid and false saying for a moment and think it through to the end.

Well, we ask, did the Dutch in 1560-1584 “deserve” the then-ruling dictatorship of Cardinal Granvela and Count Egmond, or did they “deserve” the reign of the brilliant William the Silent, or the “inquisitorial” terror of the Duke of Alba? Is it worth asking such ridiculous and dead questions?

Well, the English in the 11th century, from 1625 to 1643, “deserved” Catholic executions from Charles the First, Stuart, then until 1649 they “deserved” a civil war, from 1649 to 1660 they “deserved” Protestant terror from Cromwell, and with In 1660, did they “deserve” again Catholic terror from Charles the Second, Stuart? What fool would agree to listen to such an interpretation of history?

What did the French “deserve” during the era of their long revolution, from 1789 to 1815 - the royal power of Louis XVI, or the talkative Constituent, or the ferocious Convention, or the vile Directory, or the warlike despotism of Napoleon, or the Bourbon restoration?..

Is it possible to come up with some less superficial and less absurd historical and political standards?

Yes, the people are responsible for their government if they themselves are “of sound mind and memory” and if they freely chose it. And there is no doubt that since the people are organically connected with their government - not in the order of conquest, invasion, occupation, unscrupulous political deception, anti-national suppression, international domination and revolutionary terror, but in the order of peaceful, long, national development, in so far as between the legal consciousness of the people and the legal consciousness government there is an organic interaction and similarity. The veche, which freely elected a prince or mayor, was responsible for them. But who would dare say that the Russian people were responsible for Biron, who rose to power through base servility and anti-national suppression? There is no doubt that the Russian people would have to answer for their shameful “constituent assembly” of 1917 - if ... if they were then “of sound mind and strong memory”; but one can be absolutely sure that in his right state of health he would not have chosen such a “constituent.” Historically, the fact is undeniable: then the people were unsettled by the initial failures of the great war, they were unleashed by the extinguishing of the monarchical oath and were distraught - both by the revolutionary rule of the Februaryists and by the Bolshevik agitation.

But how could the Russian people “deserve” to be subjugated by international deception and domination, by a totalitarian system of investigation and terror unprecedented in history, by revolutionary conquest, invasion and suppression? What brutal inclinations, what villainous soul, what hellish vices would he have to have in order to “deserve” all this? Who should this people be to “deserve” such treatment, such humiliation, such management?..

We will never understand or forgive such words from the lips of a person with a Russian surname and a Russian pen. It is unforgivable for a Russian person who knows the Soviet system to say that the Russian people are responsible for their communist government... For a Russian person who claims to be a “historian” it is unforgivable to say that “Russian ethics is egalitarian, collectivist and totalitarian”; this is ignorant nonsense - she was always Christian-hearted, heart-fair and freedom-loving to the point of anarchy.

It is unforgivable for a Russian person who considers himself educated to say that the Russian “monarchy has long ceased its educational mission,” that the Russian “bureaucracy has made politics a matter of personal gain,” that the Orthodox “Church has thrown social ethics out of its practice and only knew how to defend power and wealth " All this is not true, all this is a temptation, all this is the corruption of emigration from the rear and propaganda against Russia, so useful to our foreign enemies and communists. And all this untruth (and many others!) did not need to be piled up in order to finally say that the Russian people need repentance.

“Every people deserves its own government”... No, on the contrary: every people deserves, both morally and politically, a better government than the one it has, because it is the best government that will make it the best. Every government is called upon to act in accordance with the instinct of self-preservation inherent in its people; each is called to see further than his people, to be wiser than them and to suggest to them the right paths of life.

It’s time to understand this and not repeat the political vulgarity overheard abroad from the enemies and despisers of the Russian people.

from the book I. A. Ilyin. "Our tasks", abbr.
____________________
* Initially- a phrase from a letter (dated August 27, 1811) from the envoy of the Sardinian kingdom to the Russian court, Count Joseph de Maistre (1753-1821). In this letter, the count wrote to his government about the new laws established by Emperor Alexander I. It is possible that the Sardinian envoy paraphrased the famous phrase of the philosopher and educator Charles Louis Montesquieu from his work “The Spirit of Laws”: “Every people is worthy of its fate.” The meaning of the expression: if the government is bad, immoral, ineffective, then the citizens of the country themselves are to blame for this, who allow such a government to exist and cannot control it.

Every nation has the government it deserves.

This phrase belongs to Joseph de Maistre (1754-1821), the envoy of the Sardinian kingdom to the Russian court, and was used by him in a letter dated August 27, 1811, in which he reported on the new laws issued by Alexander I.

Each according to his abilities, each according to his needs.

The basis of the relationship between the individual and the collective in the coming classless society. The phrase is attributed to Proudhon (1809-1865), who took it from Saint-Simon.

Every French soldier carries a marshal's baton in his knapsack.

This phrase, from which the Russian phrase “a bad soldier is the one who does not think of being a general,” is attributed to Napoleon I, but in a slightly different form: “We all have a patent in our knapsack for the title of Marshal of France.” In 1819, Louis XVIII addressed the students of the military school in Saint-Cyr with a speech that ended like this: “remember that there is no one among you who does not have in his knapsack the marshal’s baton of the Duke of Reggio” (a title received by Marshal Oudinot after the battle at Wagram, July 6, 1809).

Every step of a real labor movement is more important than a dozen programs.

A phrase of Marx often quoted by Plekhanov (from the Critique of the Gotha Programme, letter to Bracca, May 5, 1875).

Every time in this very place!

A persistently distorted quote (in the original simply: “in this place”) from the sketch “At the Post Station at Night” by I. F. Gorbunov, actor, writer and folk storyteller (1831-1895).

Pork barrel.

See Community Pie.

Cain's seal.

Seal of rejection, symbol of rejection. A distorted meaning of the original expression (according to biblical legend, Cain, the murderer of his brother Abel, was marked with a special seal so that no one would kill him, and not for a boycott!).

What wisdom they have in their contracts!
And there, meanwhile, in their native lands
Fleets and guns and gunpowder are being prepared.

From the poem “Island” by V. G. Benediktov (1807-!873).

What a mixture of clothes and faces,
Tribes, dialects, states!

Pushkin, “The Robber Brothers” (1821).

As if on display for centuries.

From Nekrasov’s poem “The Secret” (1846).

How I wish I could not write (not know how to read and write).

The words of Emperor Nero (37-68), famous for his cruelty, spoken when the first order to execute a criminal was brought to him for signature.

Like fast waters flowing into the sea,
So days and years flow into eternity.

Derzhavin (1743-1816), “On the death of the prince. Meshchersky".

Like on stormy days
They were going
Often;
They bent - God forgive them!
From fifty
One hundred...

From the poem by K. F. Ryleev (1795-1826) “Oh, where are those islands” (1823/24).

How sad Russia is.

See God, how sad Russia is.

How did you come to live like this?

Nekrasov, “Wretched and Smart” (1857).

How he knew life, how little he lived.

Inscription on the grave of the poet D.V. Venevitinov (1805-1827) in the Simonov Monastery in Moscow. Taken from his poem “The Poet and the Friend.”

Like a roaring lion (like a lion roaring, in ancient Slavic).

From the 5th chapter of the Epistle of Peter.

How little has been lived, how much has been experienced!

S. Ya. Nadson, from the poem “The Veil Has Been Dropped” (1882).

No matter how expensive it is for the poor to live,
Dying costs him twice as much.

Nekrasov, “About the Weather” (“Morning Walk”, 1858).

No matter how warm the alien sea is,
No matter how red someone else's distance is,
It’s not for her to fix our grief,
Unlock Russian sadness!

N. A. Nekrasov, “Silence”, 1 (1857).

No matter how you sit,
Everyone is not fit to be musicians.

Krylov's fable "Quartet".

Good health to everyone!

I have two feelings. On the one hand, there is joy in the fact that more and more people are beginning to more critically evaluate what is happening in our country, and on the other hand, there is sadness that my fears are coming true. Now I will explain everything in more detail.

On December 24, 2016, in a commentary to an article by one author of “VO” that I respect (“If a fish rots from the head, then they clean it... from the head!”), I already expressed my doubts about the president’s desire to change anything in domestic policy.

Let me remind you the main thing:

“...I sincerely love Russia and its people, and I also do not want to diminish the merits of V.V. Putin... I myself don’t like my conclusions, and I would really like to be wrong. I have no real hope that Putin will have enough strength and time due to the following.

1. Isn’t this populism? That is, the king is always good, it is the boyars who are bad. One Kremlin tower is good, the other is bad. I don't believe it. A year ago, he fully supported (V.V. Putin) the policy of the Central Bank when the ruble “collapsed,” and he supports the government’s actions today in the same way. Yes, just recently he unequivocally called on Russians to vote for United Russia. Therefore, such a system and such a leader of it, the system.

2. The Tsar is really good, but the boyars are bad. Then - another question. About competence. Just imagine, I would tell the investor/customer: we did a bad job because I have a bad foreman/foreman/estimator/head of technical department/chief. engineer, and he/they don’t understand anything about construction, and in general, they carry out my orders every other time, and only when I’m “surprised”! Introduced?

...Personally, my conclusion is this: Putin needs not force or time, but a desire to change the current state of affairs, as well as the realization that leaving EVERYTHING as it is means creating a threat to our ruling “elite” itself. I have these doubts."

More than a year has passed, and we are still going the same way. I think that there is no point in scolding V.V. Putin. He simply has different views on development, and, by the way, he does not hide them. He never deceived us. We ourselves attribute to him the way of thinking that we think a national leader should have. And he himself directly says: yes, that’s exactly what it is - this is in response to the proposal of foreign journalists to say that he is a liberal. At his speech he says: Russia has a liberal economy, and there will be no return to the past! He supports the Central Bank and calls for voting for United Russia. He also says that he loves Russia and that she can do it without him, but he can’t do it without her. Where is the deception?! And what do we want from him?

In addition to the leader, we have the “elite,” our ruling class. Our government is happy with everything, and we are just waiting for something. And watching what is happening in the internal life of the country, we are racking our brains, unable to explain the inexplicable and embrace the immensity. We cannot understand why, against the backdrop of loud statements about the rise in the level of culture, it seems to us to be falling. They tell us about the growth of healthcare, education, industry, about rising wages and living standards, but we don’t believe it. There is an imbalance in our heads about the need to follow traditional ones, incl. family values, and what is happening on screens, in theaters, in schools.

All this resembles a circus tent, some kind of booth.

What's going on? Remember, from Beaumarchais: “It makes no sense for an intelligent person to listen to everything, he will guess anyway” or from Helvetius: “We judge internal movements, thoughts, actions, and other feelings only by actions”? If we look at the actions of the ruling class, we see that they are contradictory, and the question “what is happening?” no answer. But if you look at the motives that guide the “elite,” then a lot becomes clear. In my opinion, there is only one motivation, and if not one, then the most important one is profit. That is money. Personal gain.

If we look at the Western “sharks of capitalism”, we will see that they are quite strong businessmen, hardened in competition, plus the fact that capitalism in the West has been developing for a long time. Let's look at our ruling class, which grew up on the wave of predatory privatization. The majority of our ruling class is unable to do anything without state budget money. Such representatives of the “elite” do not know how to create, they only know how to redistribute. Maybe this is why they are not respected in the West? After all, they tried to enter the world community in the late 90s, but they were not allowed there (the goose is not a friend to the pig?), therefore, in order not to lose their capital acquired through back-breaking labor, the need arose to create their own state headed by a strong leader. By the way, some representatives of the “elite” themselves spoke unambiguously about this at one time, the meaning is this: we wanted to enter the world community, but we were not allowed there. Then it seemed that “we” and “us” were about the people, but in the light of subsequent events there is no longer any doubt about who these representatives of the “elite” actually meant. At this stage, our (popular and “elite”) goals coincided.

And such “businessmen” for the most part make up our ruling class, and only people who are loyal to them, opportunists, can work alongside them. They will not tolerate others, pride gets in the way - they are princes. From rags to riches... I'm sure there are worthy people around them (someone has to work hard), but not in the first roles.

Everything is clear with motivation. Now it’s worth looking at their ideology. Their children study in foreign countries, their money and the country’s money are in foreign countries, and their ideas are either liberal or patriotic, and often an incomprehensible mixture of all this, plus these foreign countries impose sanctions against them. A simple conclusion suggests itself here - the complete absence of any ideology.

What about the culture? What about education? What's wrong? I don’t even want to repeat it, everything was written before me.

I just want to draw attention to a very important point - the emergence of a bestial attitude towards people in our country.

And now we have a ruling class. Questions arise: what is his ideology? How educated is he? Cultured? How does he relate to our history? To our traditional values?

Personally, I answered these questions for myself. What can one expect from such a ruling class? Who is not cultured, not educated (one-sided education is not such), who does not have a clear ideology, does not honor his history and cannot in any way decide on traditional values. Who has only one goal and desire - the thirst for profit and personal enrichment. So it turns out for us: it’s a disaster if the shoemaker starts baking pies, and the cake maker starts making boots. And we understand that:

It is not for us to judge who is to blame and who is right;
Yes, but things are still there.

Personally, it seems to me that there are no enemies of our country in the ruling class, and if there are, then very few. And why have enemies when you have such friends? Therefore, you should not look for evil intent in their actions, because there may not be any, no evil intent, no meaning. They work as best they can. (They introduce taxes and redistribute.) Don’t shoot the pianist - he plays as best he can. Dot.

I will quote the words of the heroes of F. M. Dostoevsky: “... but I attack Russian liberalism, and again I repeat that, in fact, I attack it because a Russian liberal is not a Russian liberal, but is not a Russian liberal” ( "Idiot"). This time. “Gregory is honest, but a fool. Many people are honest because they are fools. ...Grigory is my enemy. It is more profitable to have someone else among your enemies than your friends” (“The Brothers Karamazov”). What if these people are not honest and not enemies? Any fool would be worse than a traitor. That's two. “I, too, for example, believe that fleeing to America from the fatherland is baseness, worse than baseness is stupidity. Why go to America, when we can bring a lot of benefit to humanity? Right now. A whole mass of fruitful activity” (“The Brothers Karamazov”). That's three.

I would like to draw attention to one more point. I read opinions that our so-called. talk shows are some kind of attempt to push Russophobia. I don't agree. In my opinion, everything is much simpler, amazing things are nearby. Two points of view are assigned, one is “elite”, the other is openly Russophobic, such that in a normal person it causes only negativity. The first is expressed by representatives of the “elite” and TV presenters (small nuances are possible, but not strong), the second – by Kovtuns and others. By default, it is assumed that one of them is necessarily correct. The person, realizing that Kovtun’s point of view is openly anti-Russian, agrees with the opposite point of view as the only correct one. And who said that among these two points of view there is a correct one, since the third point of view is not voiced? Plus, of course, people need to be distracted from internal problems.

Taking into account the above, we can draw some intermediate results. We expect from our ruling class what it is, in principle, unable to give. Within the framework of the system that exists, nothing can be fundamentally changed. That is why we are watching this circus tent and booth. And when representatives of the “elite” go to the premiere of the ballet “Nureyev” directed by Kirill Serebrennikov and applaud, this is no longer a farce, but some kind of demonism.

And you can spend a very long time unraveling some cunning plan, thinking and wondering whether it exists. I’ll say right away that I think there is. I don’t know which one, I’ll find out in the second ten days of March. There are only two options.

The first is a sharp turn in domestic policy with the replacement of a large part of the “elites” and the dropping of the mask of liberalism. Stalin, after all, also “flirted” with the Third Reich, delaying the start of the war, although without destroying education and healthcare and carrying out purges in the upper echelons of power. It would be interesting to see how the gratitude of some of the “elites” will be expressed by those from “United Russia” - they say, thank you for all of you gathered here together and there is no need to look for you all over the country. It would also be interesting to see how the leaders of the largest state. corporations and their deputies will have their salaries recalculated several times downward. And it’s the same with the children of representatives of part of the “elite”. This is all interesting, but for some reason I don’t believe it. And why, in this case, was it necessary to bury education, for example?

The second is to create the appearance of the existence of this cunning plan in its complete absence. Let everyone rack their brains and think that there is some cunning plan and try to figure it out. Let’s not dissuade anyone - let everyone look for a black cat in a dark room, it’s not there anyway. Why not a plan? From the same series - either I go to the polls, or I don’t go. Everyone is guessing! In Russian, this phenomenon has excellent characteristics - casting a shadow on a fence or leading a crayfish behind a stone. Have nothing else to do?

We now have another candidate for the presidency - P.N. Grudinin. I have been following his activities on the Internet for a long time, and his nomination was a pleasant surprise for me. Before his nomination, I and many of my friends had a position: in the elections, due to the absence of the “against all” column, cross out all the proposed candidates and write “I don’t see any worthy ones.” True, a little later K. Sobchak “vulgarized” this idea too.

For me personally, there is no question that P. N. Grudinin is from the Communist Party of the Russian Federation, or he is a protege of the Kremlin. I also heard a third version - the United States gave the command “front” to G. A. Zyuganov. You need to decide for yourself whether something needs to be changed or not. Can P. N. Grudinin deceive us? Theoretically, yes, but this would already be a deception, and the current government is not going to deceive: everything is already very good with it. In my opinion, you need to do what you have to do, come what may. Everyone must decide for themselves whether to take advantage of the chance or not.

As for the reproaches for the lack of “direction of movement” among the editors of “VO”: they say, they only criticize... I believe that criticism, of course, if it is constructive, in itself is already the direction of movement. How else to reach the people? We should all do socially useful things. Constructive criticism is one of them, and it does not bother people, but only helps.

Do the elites (or part of them) come from the people or not? If so, then it seems that these are not its best representatives. So why do the people allow their not the best representatives to wipe their feet on them? You can, of course, remain silent in the hope that everything bad will bypass me, but remember what Martin Niemöller said:

When they came for the communists,
I remained silent.
I was not a communist.
When they imprisoned the Social Democrats,
I said nothing.
I was not a social democrat.
When they came for the union members,
I didn't protest.
I was not a union member.
When they came for the Jews,
I wasn't outraged.
I was not Jewish.
When they came for me
there was no one left to stand up for me.

I don’t compare anyone with anyone, I mean that all the bad things can’t be avoided.

And let’s not forget what Joseph de Mestre said in his letter: every people has the government it deserves, paraphrasing C. Montesquieu (“Every people deserves its fate”). If we assume that the people deserve everything that happens to them, then they need to humble themselves and not be indignant. If not, then do not boycott the elections, but go to the polling stations and vote according to your conscience and civic position. But for this, the whole society must change and stop being apathetic, apolitical and irresponsible.

Therefore, in my opinion, the editorial board of VO, by raising pressing issues, is doing a good thing, for which I have my sincere gratitude.

Assessing what is happening around me, I cannot help but cite several phrases that have become popular and proverbs. “Tell me who your friend is, and I will tell you who you are” (taking this into account: it is difficult to judge a person only by his friends, because Judas had friends - it’s better not to find) and “Like the priest, such is the parish”, and also “The ataman is the chieftain according to the gang, and the shepherd is the shepherd according to the sheep.”

In conclusion, I want to say: everything will be fine, Russia will survive. Whether Grudinin Pavel Nikolaevich or Putin Vladimir Vladimirovich, who in fact has done a lot of good for the country, will the former fulfill his promises, will the latter change its internal course, but in any case, even based on the laws of dialectics, Russia will survive. Can't help but resist. It will not be easy, Russia has always been rich in talents: Lomonosov, Pushkin, Kurchatov and many others, but already now there is an insufficient number of competent specialists of the middle and lower levels (taking into account the education system) who will locally solve the tasks assigned from above. It takes several years to train them, and there is less and less time left. I repeat, in any case we will survive, I just want there to be fewer losses.

Best wishes, Stepan.

Every nation has a government
which he deserves

Almost a common phrase. Where is she from? The older generation remembers something similar. During Soviet times, many studied Marxist-Leninist theory and in Marx’s works came across a maxim that sounded something like this: “Everything that is real is reasonable, everything that is reasonable is real.” It seems that K. Marx himself took this from Hegelian dialectics. And dialectics, as they say, is a rather streamlined matter... It’s not for nothing that in Soviet times there were many jokes about dialectics.
G. Hegel, believing that social development is determined by laws, believes that if something real exists, then it is natural, and therefore reasonable. And, conversely, everything reasonable... really.

As for the phrase “every people has the government it deserves,” it is more specific and less abstract. The original phrase is taken from a letter (dated August 27, 1811) from the envoy of the Sardinian kingdom to the Russian court, Count Joseph de Maistre (1753-1821). In this letter, the count wrote to his government about the new laws established by Emperor Alexander I. It is possible that the Sardinian envoy paraphrased the famous phrase of the philosopher and educator Charles Louis Montesquieu from his work “The Spirit of Laws”: “Every people deserves its fate.”

And indeed it is so. Those peoples who are more active and speak out in defense of their rights have legitimate governments, a clearly structured civil society capable of controlling the government elected by the people themselves. In such societies there is a feedback loop between the sovereign people and their elected government. Such nations, as a rule, have a fairly developed, vast and prosperous middle class, which “quenches” the selfishness of the rich and the extremism and excesses of very poor people. These people deserve to have democratic governments. This is their fate.

The fate of other peoples who do not clearly understand their goals and live in a passive mode, without showing social activity, their fate is to live either under the yoke of authoritarian ruling elites, tyrannies, satrapies, distributing the national “pie” between their confidants, clans, relatives, oligarchic groups, or live in conditions of anarchic, immature forms of democracy without “sails and helms,” where separate groups of politicians constantly fight among themselves to redistribute the “pie,” forgetting about the people. Such peoples live in lawlessness and poverty, and it turns out that because of their passivity they deserve such governments and such a fate.

And then it turns out that the quatrain of the great Alexander Pushkin, “our everything” is true:

"Graze peaceful peoples,
The cry of honor will not wake you up!
Why do the herds need the gifts of freedom?
They must be cut or sheared;
Their inheritance from generation to generation
A yoke with rattles and a whip!"

This is true because another great man said:

“Only he is worthy of life and freedom,
Whoever, without fear, goes to battle for them.”

In the modern world, there are many expressions that become catchphrases over time. These are people’s thoughts on the topics of life, power, and the existence of God. One of these phrases has become an axiom over the centuries. They tried to interpret it in different ways, to use it as a justification for the lawlessness that the state government often commits, or to expose the people who tolerate these actions.

Greek philosopher

Everyone knows the ancient thinker Socrates. Many of the Greek philosopher's sayings refer to the interaction between man and law. Consider the meaning of the phrase: “Every people deserves its own ruler.” Most likely, with this expression Socrates wanted to say that when choosing power, each individual people must approach the issue consciously and seriously.

The ruler who is chosen by the majority rules, and this means that this majority is worthy of obeying the one whom it placed on the throne. Times go by, but what Socrates said, quotes that have become catchphrases, are still relevant. They have been repeated and repeated by more than one generation of thinkers.

The Greek philosopher wrote many works on the topic of society. More than once he thought about the expediency of the government and the subordination of the people to it.

Who is Joseph De Maistre and what did he mean when he said the famous quote?

There is one famous person in philosophical circles. It is associated with the famous phrase: “Every people deserves its ruler” - this is a French-speaking subject of Sardinia in the 18th century. He was known as a diplomat, politician, writer and philosopher. In addition, he was the founder of political conservatism. His name is Joseph-Marie, Comte de Maistre.

One written dialogue included the phrase: “Every people has the government it deserves” - this was correspondence between the court envoy of Alexander I and the government of Sardinia. What is she talking about? Under what circumstances was it said?

On August 27, 1811, as a reaction to the new laws of the government of the Russian Empire, Joseph de Maistre assessed the actions of Alexander I. All the meaning and anger of the courtier was put into one phrase, which became a catchphrase. What exactly did De Maistre want to say?

The people must closely monitor the actions of the ruling elite. If society wants to live with dignity, the ruler must be responsible.

Right to choose

The immorality of the actions of the head of state lies on the conscience of the people. If the people allow the rule of the ignorant, then it suits them. And if this is not so, then why does he endure it? And if he is silent and does nothing, then the phrase: “Every people deserves its own ruler” is completely justified. In such a society, there is a right to have an appropriate government. After all, the people are the decisive link; they have the right to choose the leader who is close to them.

A democratic society is not a faceless mass of people or a herd of dumb people. It has eyes and ears and, first of all, knows how to think. When people make a mistake, they pay for it in the form of unscrupulous government.

Joseph De Maistre lived in Russia for more than ten years. During this time, the political philosopher managed to write many works on the topic of power and people. Among Russian Russian thinkers there were like-minded people of de Maistre who boldly drew inspiration from his treatises and books. According to literary studies, the philosophical thoughts of this author can be traced in the works of L. Tolstoy, F. Dostoevsky, F. Tyutchev and others.

Russian Ilyin

Of course, if there are adherents, then there are opponents. Among those who disagreed with the expression that every nation deserves its own ruler was Ivan Aleksandrovich Ilyin. He believed that society is, first of all, people who are connected by common interests. The character of the human masses is formed over centuries and entire generations. When choosing their leader, the masses are guided by the principle of survival.

The expression: “Every people has the government it deserves,” Ilyin considered false and stupid. He gave compelling arguments on this score. For example, the people of Holland. For a long time they suffered from dictatorship by the authorities (Granvela and Egmondail), although at their core they were a very peaceful people. England (XVII century) perished under the rule of Charles the First and Stuart, Cromwell. What about Catholic executions, civil wars and Protestant terror? All this was directed against a peace-loving and educated people.

Misconception and public responsibility

Ilyin considered the ideas expressed by Joseph de Maistre to be a mistake. The latter simply interpreted the words of the great ancient philosopher in accordance with the reality around him. Perhaps Socrates' quotes are either misinterpreted, or they are simply false. Ilyin categorically disagreed with these philosophers. According to Ilyin, a good ruler can make his people better.

And what did the ferocity of the Convention and the despotism of Napoleon cost the people of the era of revolutions in France! This list can be continued for a very long time. Czechs, Serbs, Romanians, Slavs...

Did they really deserve to be treated brutally at all times? Of course, any society cannot be one-sided and the same mass. Among them there are both righteous and atheists. Ilyin notes that the modern democratic system of electing a ruler cannot fully satisfy the needs of everyone. We vote for the image created by others, and not for the person we know well. Therefore, a share of responsibility lies with society, but it is so tiny that it is quite possible to choose a scoundrel without even knowing it.

Biblical origins

The catchphrase about the fact that every nation is worthy of its own ruler has its roots in Christian scriptures. The Bible says a lot. For some people, this is a familiar and understandable book. But there are those who do not understand the meaning of what was said at all. There are also people who partially take to heart what is written in the Holy Scriptures, but partially cannot understand and accept. Unfortunately, too many people interpret this Great Book differently. Therefore, the phrase that every nation deserves its own ruler causes various disputes and becomes a reason for philosophical conversations. One way or another, according to Scripture, all authority comes from God. Whether we like it or not, God is almighty, and nothing can pass by the All-Seeing Eye.

In the Christian understanding, there is one law - this is Love. And it is impossible to condemn a ruler, even the most terrible one. He will have his own judgment - God's. It is said more: “Love Christ and do what you want...” He who has reason understands that, having let God into his heart and soul, a person is not capable of crime. He lives according to the law of conscience, which is the voice of God. Therefore, such a person does not need written laws. He has the Law in his heart, and he will not break it.

Why have a government?

But for those who have not known Christ, state regulation of laws is precisely what is needed. Maybe because the majority of society is godless or accepts God abstractly, without fulfilling his commandments... And it is said that every nation deserves its own government, even if on the whole the people seem peaceful. There are always pitfalls. The iron is first dipped into the fire, then forged, and only then cooled. Likewise, people, apparently, succumb to such forging in order to expose the stench of souls and reveal the best, as we say, heroes. Then, looking at the heroes, we strive at least a little to be like them. Our soul softens and purifies in suffering. Yes, it hurts, but for some reason, when we are full and have everything, we become more ungrateful, lazy and lustful.

What do we all need?

The one who said: “Every people deserves its own ruler,” perhaps understood the depth of the fall of humanity as a whole. If we all understood how valuable human life is, how important it is to forgive and love, to accept and give joy, to live according to conscience, not to steal or fornicate... What can we say about despot rulers, if violence has become the norm in many families. How many abortions (legalized murder of children) have been performed around the world? So, maybe the one who said: “Every nation deserves its own ruler” was right? How much is hidden in our souls? How we can speak beautifully in public, be hypocritical and do good deeds. But when we come home, behind closed doors we can condemn, slander, hurt our neighbors, become despots, envious people, fornicators and gluttons.

It's worth thinking about this. This topic can be continued for a long time. But we can say: we all need repentance before asking God for another government.